- Local time
- Today, 18:57
- Apr 19, 2016
You sound defensive to be honest. I don't think its me who got my panties in my wad. Using terms like 'appeal to authority' and stuff, I suppose you read psychology and try to use it everywhere. Cool, I don't see how you actually criticised my theory in any way by 'appealing to authority (aka posting links and then reading through it)'. Making original theories and using a priori cognition to derive your actual criticisms with monumental theory bound to replace the one you are trying to criticise is harder than using several frames of references and then using cynicism to cover your tracks. Good work with the condescension.Being qua being ... what was that?
I was trying for semi-serious at times.
that rhymes with `supercilious'
Does this count for something now?
Ahhh ... bullshit and based/founded, as opposed to unfounded as per discounting?
You DID figure that one out as intended.
I was trying for absurdism and mock narcissism by elevating my self above BOTH of you.
Watch how Donald Trump does it some time.
There you go, you've go Appeal to Authority working for/against you now.
FWIW, I don't give a fuzzy rat's ass what Stephen wolfram has been promoting ... or for how long.
Dude, it WORKED for getting your panties in a wad.
I was light heartedly presenting stimuli into your metaphorical skinner box.
You reacted as a perfect reactionary.
They were and remain ONLY words as per Philosophy of Language.
The dead-serious part of my post was ...
"Good luck on YOUR paper, dude."
Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk